On writing well(cla.wayne.edu)
cla.wayne.edu
On writing well
http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm
26 コメント
There are many, many flaws with the school system. This is one of them. (The other problem is that there are a lot of people who think they're Marys when in reality they're just writing short, crappy essays.)
Honestly, I've only encountered this in CS writing classes (40 page minimum requirements docs, etc). All of the actual writing classes I took used the min. page requirement very loosely. The teachers/TA's explicitly said that writing well was much better than writing more.
The excerpted book
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonficti...
is wonderful. I have my doubts about whether the professor who posted that long excerpt on a public website really understands what "fair use" is about in United States copyright law. But if readers read the excerpt after following the link here and then buy the book, that would be a good outcome.
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonficti...
is wonderful. I have my doubts about whether the professor who posted that long excerpt on a public website really understands what "fair use" is about in United States copyright law. But if readers read the excerpt after following the link here and then buy the book, that would be a good outcome.
Yeah, I think the excerpt exceeds fair use length requirements. Still, while reading two chapters is nice, it can't be worse than providing a one-chapter excerpt. After all, the book is a package deal, and it's important to read the whole thing if you plan on improving your writing.
The professor may have some additional slack -- copyright law explicitly mentions educational uses under its acceptable fair use rationale, so if anyone can get away with an excerpt that runs a tad long, it's probably a university professor.
When I signed my contract with O'Reilly to work on The Geek Atlas they sent me a copy of this book as part of my 'welcome to the O'Reilly family' pack.
It's excellent. I'd recommend reading it and Strunk and White for anyone who needs to write non-fiction.
It's excellent. I'd recommend reading it and Strunk and White for anyone who needs to write non-fiction.
I'm not sure I agree. Okay, English is not my primary language, but it largely applies to Spanish. The so called "clutter" sometimes adds expresiveness. He argues that "smile happily" is redundant. But not all smiles are happy smiles. So the word is not dispensable at all.
After reading through it doesn't feel like there is much content in his writing, anybody else have this feeling?
Absolutely disagree. I read the entire book (24 chapters) this summer in preparation for AP English. It's a must-read for anyone writing non-fiction. That means businessowners too: there's one part about not using tangly words just to sound more professional. There's also stuff about not using "quotes" like that, and about word choice. Everyone, especially bloggers, would benefit from reading this book.
It's simply brilliant, and I highly recommend it.
It's simply brilliant, and I highly recommend it.
I really like Write to the Point by Bill Stott. Agreed that every hacker should work to improve themselves as writers.
It's funny, because I have the exact opposite reaction. I think he makes good points, but ruins it in that his own style is cluttered and more complex than it needs to be. It's still great advice to follow: I see it as "do as I say, not as I do."
I agree, and I felt the same way when I read the whole book. It was hard for me to learn anything about writing from someone whose own style is so flabby.
But the substance of his advice is good, and anyone who enjoys the style would probably benefit from reading it. It's just kind of ironic that he's unable to apply his own instructions.
But the substance of his advice is good, and anyone who enjoys the style would probably benefit from reading it. It's just kind of ironic that he's unable to apply his own instructions.
Is it similar to Elements of Style in its focus? (That book, of course, had the most perfect phrasing: "Omit needless words.")
According to my recollection, there's less of the nuts-&-bolts-of-grammar and more about substance. E.g. Zinsser spends a lot of time arguing that you have to have a deep understanding of a subject, and be able to think well about it, to write well about it. Which ... sure, no doubt. But, um, not that helpful? (At least not to me at the time.)
It's been a long time, though, and the book apparently has many fans on this board who surely know it much better than I do. But no, less technical and more discursive than Strunk & White.
It's been a long time, though, and the book apparently has many fans on this board who surely know it much better than I do. But no, less technical and more discursive than Strunk & White.
Ummm...No, I don't.
I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just tear you apart. But that inhibits my ability to defend it point by point (since going point by point I would end up tearing you apart)
But needless to say the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded.
I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just tear you apart. But that inhibits my ability to defend it point by point (since going point by point I would end up tearing you apart)
But needless to say the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded.
When you argue against his point, cite his writing. When you argue writing, talk about the writing and nothing but the writing.
As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument.
If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.
As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument.
If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.
Incorrect is not the same as "without content" (which is what the original author claimed). Something can be incorrect and still be taught because it contains content (albeit false content). Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue.
Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other).
Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other).
Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
"Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue."
If it's literally contentless, okay.
But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do.
This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book).
I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.
If it's literally contentless, okay.
But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do.
This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book).
I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.
Okay, fair enough. (I would argue that you can tear somebody apart and still keep it intellectual.)
I have this book on my desk right now. I read it every year. I also try to keep an extra copy or two at home to give to friends who are serious about blogging/writing well.
Best book on writing. Period.
Best book on writing. Period.
On writing good
Haha. But seriously, I found this very interesting :)
Haha. But seriously, I found this very interesting :)
According to the guys who teach -- Mary should receive about an F on her paper while Julie will get a B+.